Hi Tetsuya,
>
> The draft mentioned NS must include SLLA option in order to inform the
link-
> layer address of the host. However when the router receives RS message
from
> the host, the router responds RA to the host. At that time, the router
needs
> to know the link-layer address of the host in order to send out RA to the
> host. So, I think SLLA option of the host must be included in RS instead
of
> NS.
[SC>] 6lowpan-nd section 5.2 refers to Section 6.3.7 of rfc4861 for
sending RS. Rfc4861
States that an implementation SHOULD include SLLA option with RS
when the src ip address is not an un-specified address.
However, your point is taken and we will discuss this among the co-authors.
>
> According to the current ND draft, after receiving RS message, the router
> sends NS message in order to solve the link layer address of the host by
> using solicited node multicast address. In order to eliminate the
multicast
> packet as much as possible, I recommend to include SLLA option in RS
instead
> of NS.
>
[SC>] Actually, if the implementation allows, a router may figure out the
link-layer address of the sender of RS from the RS packet(MAC header) and
resolve the link-layer address that way.
However, in case of 6lowpan devices it might make sense to expect the SLLA
option with RS request in order to save some extra processing to figure out
from MAC header.
[SC>]
Thanks,
-Samita
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
